Ancient One

I hope that nobody is trying to say that a surprise German invasion of the US was historically possible, because then I'd call them a fool.

I know that the MPP stockpile totals go down, but you're counting it twice. Just do the math, it's not that complicated.

Great, overall the list of changes looks good. One thing concerns me however: Maybe I'm misinterpreting you, but does this mean that in Hotseat the 'Disable Undo' option is mandatory? I prefer to play the game with Fog of War off, especially in Hotseat games (I like to watch my opponent take his turn, and comment on his moves). As far as I can tell, the undo option can only be abused if the Fog of War is on. I often make errors in where to move, and would like the option to make undoing moves possible during the Hotseat game. I'm also planning to teach my 11 year old brother how to play this game, and certainly alot of mistakes will be made necessitating the use of the undo button. On a similar note, I'm worried that the game has not been balanced with Fog of War: OFF in mind to the same extent it has with ON. Have the OFF players been shafted?

Put the "Scorched Earth" option on.

Wrong, the 3 lost in production IS the 2 you lose next turn and the 1 after that, you're counting it twice. The final total you lose from that attack is 6. You may then say "well, it all adds up", but consider this - Doing 1 point of damage to a corps is also worth 6, it adds up a helluva lot faster, and you don't need units that cost 500 MPP each to inflict this kind of damage. [ July 04, 2002, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Ancient One ]

I made a thread about this a while back, and I agree totally with aesop. However, I believe that Hubert said he would make disbanding less profitable, so we'll have to wait and see.

Not really.

I hope the 1940 setup has been strengthened.

Hey BB, I answered Otto at the same time you did.

It means "if I recall correctly".

Sorry for what may seem as "beating a dead horse" so to speak, but I must make this final plea: Please let strategic bombers bomb resource areas even when occupied by enemy units. Right now the really important areas (capitals, mines, oil wells) are few enough that an enemy can garrison all of them with corps at ease, relegating the strategic bombers to bombing ports or the occasional undefended city. I want key resource areas to be under threat of bombing. I want to bomb London, I want to bomb the Ruhr mines, I want to bomb the Ploesti oil fields, I want to force the enemy to devote air fleets to defend such objectives. Consider this: Of the 4 mines in western Europe (2 in Germany, 2 in France), if guarding them with corps at 125 MPP each, would only cost a total of 500 MPP, the cost of 1 strategic bomber. :eek: Yes, I know the AI is too stupid to garrison all mines and oil wells, but a good human player sure as hell isn't. Please...

Yes it would.

I think it's balanced out by the fact that Italian industrial production is way higher than it was historically, so is the quality of Italian forces.

It is of great amusement to me that the Mediterranean situation in SC is the exact opposite of that in CoS. I think neither game handles the Med properly, but I think CoS portrays it quite a bit more realistically than SC. Historically, in spite of the distances involved, Germany and Italy had far greater difficulty reinforcing and supplying their forces in North Africa than the British did.

Nobody has mentioned why a diminishing returns system is unlikely to work effectively, why do you think it won't work?

Yes Switzerland isn't really that big of a deal, though in my opinion they should be stronger. Sweden on the other hand, NEEDS to be made stronger, giving them 2 more armies to block the coast and even a cruiser or 2 (they had a strong navy) would not be out of line.

Seriously though, it may actually be a good idea to attack Switzerland for the pillage value. Historically Switzerland would have been a tough nut to crack, but in SC they're a walkover (not least because they are out of supply in their own country).

I agree with Straha, I'd much prefer a pure PTO game over one covering the entire war. After that I'd like another ETO game with much more realism and a greatly extended map.

Yes, but you'd have even greater luck with Air Fleets which are cheaper as well. The point is not that Strategic Bombers are completely useless, it's just that there's little they can do that the less expensive Air Fleets can't do better. I've said it before, Strategic Bombers need to be able to hit cities/mines/oil even if there have units on them. I'd be far more likely to purchase them if I could bomb London rather than just the ports, or make my enemies devote Air Fleets to defend the Ploesti or Caucasus oil fields instead of just a couple of corps. Also, Air Fleets are far too weak when escorting or intercepting, and probably too strong otherwise.

In Clash of Steel some units could attack up to 7 times. :eek:

The amount of MPPs you get for disbanding is based on readiness, which is tied to supply. For the record, I think disbanding should either be removed from the game entirely or be made so unattractive that no decent strategies could be built around it. [ June 05, 2002, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: Ancient One ]

I'm strongly against any turn delay for DoWs. If there is a problem with surprise invasions of Sweden, US, Italy, etc., the problem could be partially alleviated by reducing the supply for newly landed units to 5 instead of 10 (I wonder why nobody else thought of this solution). Also, some countries should start off with some of their units already entrenched. [ June 05, 2002, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: Ancient One ]

This already happens (except for capitals).

Amen!

I fully agree with the 5-9-12-14-15% idea. It would encourage players to spread the research around at least a little bit.